Pete Wedderburn

Pete Wedderburn qualified as a vet twenty-five years ago, and now spends half his working life writing newspaper columns. He lives in Ireland with his wife, two daughters and a menagerie of dogs, cats, poultry and other furry and feathered companions. Pete answers readers' queries about their pets' health in his video Q&A – he is also on Twitter as @petethevet and has a Facebook Fan Page.

Experiments on animals: science or torture?

The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) has won a ruling from the Information Commissioner's Office which will force five British universities to reveal details of experiments that have been carried out on primates. The universities had argued tthat this would make them targets for animal rights groups and endanger researchers, but a judgement was made that this will not be the case. It is true, however, that the release of information is likely to be used by anti-vivisectionists to point an accusing finger at the universities in a way that will make many people feel very uncomfortable.

The concept of "freedom of information" has dramatically altered the way that public bodies operate. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 defines what information public authorities are compelled to release.

When a complaint is made under the Freedom of Information Act against a public authority, the Information Commissioners Office investigates the facts behind the complaint and then issues a decision notice, indictating whether or not the public authority has been judged to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. The notice can include legally binding steps for the public authority to follow. Arguments like "releasing the information would be bad for our image" are obviously not legitimate reasons to withhold information, so it's not surprising that the Act often results in decisions that are unpopular with those forced to release information.

Experimenting on animals has always been a contentious issue, and there's a wide range of views out there on what should be allowed. Groups like BUAV believe that no animal experiments are ever justified; at the other end of the spectrum, some individuals believe that humans should be allowed to use animals for any purpose that they deem necessary. Most people reject both of these extremes, believing that there may be a place for a limited number of carefully controlled experiments in order to achieve significant medical advances. The relevant UK legislation – the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 – reflects this view, allowing animal experiments only under strict regulation and monitoring. Home office inspectors make unannounced visits to licensed laboratories to ensure that correct procedures are being followed. On the face of it, it would seem that the law supports the middle ground, and you'd hope that those with extreme views on either side would respect this, continuing to push their arguments through democratic means.

Unfortunately, the violent, terrorist-like activities of some extremists opposed to all animal experimentation means that rational debate can be impossible, and animal experimentation is an area of science which is under continuing pressure. The Home Office has a unit to deal with the extremists – known as the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (NETCU)- and they have had some success recently, but no-one's found an ideal way to deal with situations like this. Giving concessions to extremists is the wrong thing to do – letting bullies win only going encourages others to take violent action. On the other hand, locking up extremists can make them into martyrs, aiding in recruitment of naive newcomers into the movement.

So what's the answer? How about this: nip extremist activity in the bud before it gets serious. Monitor everyone all the time – including CCTV,screening emails and mobile phone texts, and occasionally tapping phone lines. Does this approach sound familiar?